Blumenthal v. Brewer
69 N.E.3d 834
| Ill. | 2016Background
- Jane Blumenthal sued for partition of a Chicago home she jointly owned with longtime domestic partner Judge Eileen Brewer after their relationship ended; the court awarded Blumenthal payment for her share and Brewer bought out the share.
- Brewer counterclaimed with five counts seeking equitable/property remedies (constructive trust, equitable division, credits for expenditures, quantum meruit, and an interest in Blumenthal’s medical practice), all grounded in their long-term, marriage-like cohabitation.
- The trial court dismissed Brewer’s entire counterclaim under Hewitt v. Hewitt, which bars claims by knowingly unmarried cohabitants for marriage-like property rights because Illinois abolished common-law marriage.
- The Illinois Appellate Court rejected Hewitt and reversed the dismissal; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review and now vacates/reverses the appellate decision and affirms the trial court.
- The Supreme Court holds counts relating to the house (I, II, IV, V) are moot/res judicata because the partition judgment was final and unappealed; count III (restitution/constructive trust in medical practice) is dismissed as contravening Hewitt and statutory public policy, and constructive trust relief would also be barred by medical practice ownership statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Brewer's Argument | Blumenthal's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hewitt remains controlling and bars common-law/equitable claims by unmarried cohabitants | Hewitt is obsolete given legislative and social changes since 1979; public policy no longer supports the ban | Hewitt implements the statutory ban on common-law marriage; only the legislature may change that policy | Hewitt remains binding; appellate court erred in overruling it; Hewitt bars marriage-like property claims rooted in cohabitation |
| Appealability of dismissal of counts tied to partition (I, II, IV, V) | Rule 304(a) appeal permitted | Dismissal not final because counts seek same relief as partition | Dismissal of those counts was not appealable under Rule 304(a); appellate court lacked jurisdiction; issue is moot because partition judgment final and unappealed |
| Viability of count seeking constructive trust/restitution against Blumenthal’s medical practice (count III) | Claim seeks restitution/unjust enrichment for funds from joint account used to buy practice; common-law relief should be available | Claim contravenes public policy per Hewitt; constructive trust impossible because nonphysician cannot hold medical practice ownership under statutes | Count III dismissed: constructive trust unavailable (statutory prohibition); restitution claim barred when based on marriage-like relationship by Hewitt |
| Constitutional challenge (due process/equal protection) to Hewitt’s rule | Denial of remedies to cohabitants irrational and discriminatory, especially re same-sex couples previously unable to marry | Hewitt effectuates legitimate state interest in regulating marriage; alternatives existed (travel to marry, statutory remedies) | Court rejects Brewer’s constitutional challenges; state interest in regulating marriage is legitimate and Hewitt rationally furthers it |
Key Cases Cited
- Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill. 2d 49 (Ill. 1979) (Illinois Supreme Court holding that statutory abolition of common-law marriage bars marriage-like property claims by knowingly unmarried cohabitants)
- Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (Cal. 1976) (en banc) (recognizing contract-based remedies between nonmarital cohabitants; discussed and rejected in Hewitt)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (U.S. Supreme Court recognizing same-sex marriage as a constitutional right; discussed regarding marriage’s continued institutional importance)